May 20, 1999
Gov. Ben Cayetano
State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Dear Governor:
Re: H.B. 351, HD2, SD1, CD1
Vetoing this bill would be in the public interest.
If you allow this measure to become law, after July 1,
residents will not be able to find out the severity of crime
in their neighborhoods or how bad the roads are leading
to and from their homes.
Simply put, this bill would prevent hospitals from
disclosing the medical conditions of anyone - including
victims of crime and accidents.
The news media would not be able to determine and
report the severity of crimes or accidents, leading to some
articles not getting run. It would add vagary to articles. If
crime victims are in critical condition, is that not more newsworthy
than if he or she is in satisfactory condition?
In the past year, the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin
wrote some 1,100 articles that related to medical conditions
of accident and crime victims. Often, the decision to run an
article is based on whether the person is seriously injured.
If medical conditions are withheld, the news media could not
draw the line on stories the public would see. Conditions often
are how readers rate the seriousness of the accidents or crime
in their neighborhoods. Essential information for those articles
would probably be withheld; and in some cases, articles might
not get written or aired because a medical condition of a victim
is not available.
Readers and viewers, on occasion, have asked for information
in the rare instances where a hospital has withheld a condition or
name of a young child hospitalized after a near drowning or abuse.
This measure is based heavily on federal legislation that was
stalled in Congress four years ago. The news media and others
opposed this measure, and Congress in its wisdom decided to
hold it. A similar bill was passed in Maine (please see attached
information), but it caused such a stir that the legislature is in the
process of redoing it. The bill was so vague that relatives could
not find out how well their family members are doing in the hospital -
something that we wonder might happen under the Hawaii bill.
The Office of Information Practices will tell you that it is
ONLY CODIFYING existing practice.
If the office tells you that, as it has others, it is NOT true.
The bill would require that patients sign a waiver to release
their medical conditions. In fact, in the method described in the bill,
many, if not all, patients would opt to withhold disclosure of their
medical conditions.
That is not the existing practice. The news media ask public
information people or nursing supervisors the conditions of
individuals and receive the information for articles.
No one is arguing against protection of medical records,
and we understand there are some powerful interests in favor
of this bill. What we are saying is the news media should be
permitted information about medical conditions from hospitals
- as is the case now.
For a democracy to work, the public must be informed,
even about items that might seem minor; for without them,
the public cannot view how systems and government works
or doesn't work. There are bigger picture articles that
transcend the day-to-day use of medical conditions.
An example would be dangerous intersections where
serious accidents occur. Is someone doing something
about them? How serious is spouse abuse and child
abuse in the community? Without the condition reports,
those articles might not be told because trends would be
hard to spot.
The chapter raised questions about the problem during
a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Senate bill
and written testimony in the Judiciary/Health and Human
Services hearing on the House counterpart measure. Judiciary
Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley said the committee would take
care of the problem. The committee never did.
When the matter went to conference committee, I faxed each
conferee our objections. Rep. Nestor Garcia, a former television
newsman, called back and said he would try to introduce any
language the chapter could come up with for an exemption.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin's attorney drafted a provision for
an exemption, and we faxed it to Garcia. The Senate would not
accept the amendment, based on information from the Office of
Information Practices that the law would not change existing
practices.
The news media will find the effects of this bill intolerable, but
the worst effect will be on the public.
We hope you will veto this bill and send it back for more work
next year.
Thank you for your time and attention.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 525-8642 or
at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, HI 96802.
Sincerely,
Stirling Morita
FOI Committee Chairman
Hawaii chapter, Society of Professional Journalists
May 20, 1999Gov. Ben CayetanoState CapitolHonolulu, HI 96813Dear Governor:Re: H.B. 351, HD2, SD1, CD1 Vetoing this bill would be in the public interest. If you allow this measure to become law, after July 1, residents will not be able to find out the severity of crime in their neighborhoods or how bad the roads are leading to and from their homes. Simply put, this bill would prevent hospitals from disclosing the medical conditions of anyone - including victims of crime and accidents.The news media would not be able to determine and report the severity of crimes or accidents, leading to some articles not getting run. It would add vagary to articles. If crime victims are in critical condition, is that not more newsworthy than if he or she is in satisfactory condition?In the past year, the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin wrote some 1,100 articles that related to medical conditions of accident and crime victims. Often, the decision to run an article is based on whether the person is seriously injured. If medical conditions are withheld, the news media could not draw the line on stories the public would see. Conditions often are how readers rate the seriousness of the accidents or crime in their neighborhoods. Essential information for those articles would probably be withheld; and in some cases, articles might not get written or aired because a medical condition of a victim is not available.Readers and viewers, on occasion, have asked for information in the rare instances where a hospital has withheld a condition or name of a young child hospitalized after a near drowning or abuse.This measure is based heavily on federal legislation that was stalled in Congress four years ago. The news media and others opposed this measure, and Congress in its wisdom decided to hold it. A similar bill was passed in Maine (please see attached information), but it caused such a stir that the legislature is in the process of redoing it. The bill was so vague that relatives could not find out how well their family members are doing in the hospital - something that we wonder might happen under the Hawaii bill. The Office of Information Practices will tell you that it is ONLY CODIFYING existing practice.If the office tells you that, as it has others, it is NOT true. The bill would require that patients sign a waiver to release their medical conditions. In fact, in the method described in the bill, many, if not all, patients would opt to withhold disclosure of their medical conditions. That is not the existing practice. The news media ask public information people or nursing supervisors the conditions of individuals and receive the information for articles.No one is arguing against protection of medical records, and we understand there are some powerful interests in favor of this bill. What we are saying is the news media should be permitted information about medical conditions from hospitals - as is the case now.For a democracy to work, the public must be informed, even about items that might seem minor; for without them, the public cannot view how systems and government works or doesn't work. There are bigger picture articles that transcend the day-to-day use of medical conditions. An example would be dangerous intersections where serious accidents occur. Is someone doing something about them? How serious is spouse abuse and child abuse in the community? Without the condition reports, those articles might not be told because trends would be hard to spot. The chapter raised questions about the problem during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Senate bill and written testimony in the Judiciary/Health and Human Services hearing on the House counterpart measure. Judiciary Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley said the committee would take care of the problem. The committee never did. When the matter went to conference committee, I faxed each conferee our objections. Rep. Nestor Garcia, a former television newsman, called back and said he would try to introduce any language the chapter could come up with for an exemption. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin's attorney drafted a provision for an exemption, and we faxed it to Garcia. The Senate would not accept the amendment, based on information from the Office of Information Practices that the law would not change existing practices. The news media will find the effects of this bill intolerable, but the worst effect will be on the public. We hope you will veto this bill and send it back for more work next year.Thank you for your time and attention.If you have any questions, I can be reached at 525-8642 or at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, HI 96802. Sincerely, Stirling Morita FOI Committee ChairmanHawaii chapter, Society of Professional Journalists